This thread .....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tringa

Tringa

Numpty of the Day'
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,133
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
..... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/i-am-different-i-am-with.571165/

made me think a bit, or rather some of the replies did.

As this thread suggests what camera we use is generally unimportant and other threads have said the lens is more important. Therefore should we, when posting images, say which lens we used, but not mention the camera at all?

I realise there are images where a member is trying out some capabilities or function of a camera and wants to says what camera they used, but for many shots is there any need to mention it?

Dave

PS I am sure I have been guilty of this.
 
Mostly, I don't care two hoots about what camera lens or anything else the person used to take the picture - I care about the picture itself, about what the photographer was trying to say with the image, and the thought processes behind taking their "vision" into the image that they're presenting.

Would you ask what brushes a painter used, or what grade of canvas he was painting on? Would you ask which Chisels and Hammer a sculptor used to produce his work... Not really - they're a tool that was used to help the vision become a reality.

Other than either "test shots" or in areas that are "hardware driven" (for example in the F&C section, it's fairly usual to mention the kit used, because - well - there's such a range of equipment in there - from box-brownies to 10x8" studio cameras, and from Hasselblads to Holgas...) I just don't see the point.
 
TheBigYin said:
Would you ask what brushes a painter used, or what grade of canvas he was painting on? Would you ask which Chisels and Hammer a sculptor used to produce his work... Not really - they're a tool that was used to help the vision become a reality.
Click to expand...
If I was trying to learn painting or sculpting then yes I probably would.

When I first started out in photography I had no idea that full frame cameras were better than crop sensors or that prime lenses are sharper and faster. How would I have learnt that if I didn't see what others were using to create the kind of photos that I want to create?

I admit, it's not all about the kit but sometimes you just have to have the right kit to get the right photo.
 
TheBigYin said:
Mostly, I don't care two hoots about what camera lens or anything else the person used to take the picture - I care about the picture itself, about what the photographer was trying to say with the image, and the thought processes behind taking their "vision" into the image that they're presenting.

Would you ask what brushes a painter used, or what grade of canvas he was painting on? Would you ask which Chisels and Hammer a sculptor used to produce his work... Not really - they're a tool that was used to help the vision become a reality.

Other than either "test shots" or in areas that are "hardware driven" (for example in the F&C section, it's fairly usual to mention the kit used, because - well - there's such a range of equipment in there - from box-brownies to 10x8" studio cameras, and from Hasselblads to Holgas...) I just don't see the point.
Click to expand...

I bet on other art forums there are heated discussions about the best mallet to work marble or what chisel gets the most from concrete.
 
TheBigYin said:
Would you ask what brushes a painter used, or what grade of canvas he was painting on? Would you ask which Chisels and Hammer a sculptor used to produce his work... Not really - they're a tool that was used to help the vision become a reality.
Click to expand...

On an artists' forum, probably yes.


Steve.
 
:shrug: maybe I'm out of step here, I don't know... I seldom venture into the "talk equipment" or similar areas unless "on duty", and I've very little interest in the hardware other than getting if fixed if it goes wrong. I do think that sometimes this place is more "Talk Camera Equipment" rather than "Talk Photography" though...
 
TheBigYin said:
:shrug: maybe I'm out of step here, I don't know...
Click to expand...

It's not a problem really. I just think that on a photography forum, people are interested in the cameras and lenses used. On art forums, they are interested in paints and brushes - and guess what they talk about on guitar forums... strings, pickups, amps, etc.


Steve.
 
But if someone on a Guitar forum posted a Youtube link of his bands latest song, wouldn't it make more sense to be discussing the nuances of the music rather than if the bass player was using Round-Wound or Ground Wound Strings...
 
I am not sure it really matters either way tbh... if everyone added some text instead of just posting a picture with no words at all, saying why they are sharing and what they are looking for by way of comments, that would go some way to covering this point anyway. If someone has struggled to get the photo they wanted, then settings and kit might be important if it's a technical issue [lens and camera, because whilst glass might be important, the whole package can make a difference], or not if it's an aesthetic issue. Just posting lens info would strike me as odd as a 35mm F2 on FF can give a very different photo to the same spec lens on a much smaller sensor, so would make sense to post all the info, or none. :thinking:
 
TheBigYin said:
:shrug: maybe I'm out of step here, I don't know... I seldom venture into the "talk equipment" or similar areas unless "on duty", and I've very little interest in the hardware other than getting if fixed if it goes wrong. I do think that sometimes this place is more "Talk Camera Equipment" rather than "Talk Photography" though...
Click to expand...

I think this is furthest I've strayed from f&c in ages so I can't really comment.

TheBigYin said:
But if someone on a Guitar forum posted a Youtube link of his bands latest song, wouldn't it make more sense to be discussing the nuances of the music rather than if the bass player was using Round-Wound or Ground Wound Strings...
Click to expand...

Yes it probably would and you'd think that discussions on the nuances of the light or the photographers intentions would be more interesting but kit talk is easier I suppose.
 
Not so much for landscapes but for subjects where kit can make a huge difference such as wildlife or motor sport - I think it's it's quite nice to know the kit used.

My opinion on the shot may differ depending on whether the photographer has used entry level gear or a £10K camera lens combo.
 
Last edited:
dinners said:
I think it's it's quite nice to know the kit used.

Not so much for landscapes but for subjects where kit can make a huge difference such as wildlife or motor sport - my opinion on the shot may differ.
Click to expand...

That's perhaps why it doesn't really worry me - neither of those genre's interest me in the slightest...
 
steveo_mcg said:
Yes it probably would and you'd think that discussions on the nuances of the light or the photographers intentions would be more interesting but kit talk is easier I suppose.
Click to expand...
For many the equipment IS essentially their hobby, and there are many proud owners of £2000+ dslr's whose images are at worst no more than inept snaps.
 
droj said:
For many the equipment IS essentially their hobby, and there are many proud owners of £2000+ dslr's whose images are at worst no more than inept snaps.
Click to expand...

Sadly (the first part) is true.

I know somebody (not a member on here) who spends a fortune on camera equipment and I don't think it even sees the light of day. When we do talk about photography I'm shocked at his lack of understanding even the basics.
 
What does it matter if someone likes gear collecting and their photos are crap.
No worse or better than having expensive kitchenware and being a rotten cook

More concerning is why people are so bothered by what others do or don't do
 
It's just a shame when they're not interested in getting the best out of it.
 
All about enjoyment, if they are having fun what does it matter to anyone else?

I support a crap footie team, still enjoy watching them although I'm sure others think its pointless (certainly are that last bit this season)
 
Last edited:
tijuana taxi said:
All about enjoyment, if they are having fun what does it matter to anyone else?
Click to expand...

I don't disagree but I'm sure (the individual I'm talking about) would get far more enjoyment from his photography if he was willing to learn a bit about the gear he has and photography in general.

What's your footie team ?
 
Leyton Orient, been supporting them since 66 and more downs than ups

Sort of know what you mean about understanding and enjoyment, there again too much information and all that
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
That's perhaps why it doesn't really worry me - neither of those genre's interest me in the slightest...
Click to expand...

dinners said:
But to many others it may be of interest.
Click to expand...

True, I never meant my comment to be taken as a statement of how others should behave, it was merely a comment on how I personally feel about looking at and perhaps critiquing images. It's certainly not a "policy statement" from staff - as I was simply posting as a member of the community...



tijuana taxi said:
What does it matter if someone likes gear collecting and their photos are crap.
No worse or better than having expensive kitchenware and being a rotten cook

More concerning is why people are so bothered by what others do or don't do
Click to expand...

Again, I don't really care if people are into collecting shiny things rather than producing images... however, after a few years on here, I knew that there were likely to be plenty of posts supporting the "gear afficionado" point of view, and thought that someone making the other side of the case might help to foster a slightly more interesting and longer lived debate.
 
Not personally into gear collecting, still using a 5D MkI, but can appreciate how others have fun
 
Masked Bandit said:
Can't we discuss both?
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not being prescriptive about what people can or can't do... I'm just stating my own personal preference on the matter, though I do wish that more people would actually be more interested in the (cover your ears now kiddies i'm going to swear) artistic side of the image making process rather than the technical.

(I should add that by general orientation i'm a pretty technical kind of person, always in the "science streams" at school, degree in computing, that sort of thing - I think that probably photography is the sole area where I actually feel I can be something more than just a technician)
 
Last edited:
There's likely a few groups interested in the specifics of gear: beginners who are really trying to learn their way around, experienced photographers who are replacing or purchasing to extend capabilities and finally the gear heads who love the technology and happen to use it to take pictures.

Most of us take pictures with entirely routine kit: the FF equivalent of 24-450mm lenses fitted to a camera body from one of the big four. There's generally nothing 'interesting' or image-specific about the gear, and with a bit of experience we will probably instinctively know what gear to use in which situation, so questions about what was used will only arise if you fit in one of the 3 groups. There's no reason not to discuss gear, but for most I doubt they really care much.
 
My gear fits me both physically and in terms of what I want from it. Every time I do a major upgrade, I try the competition to the current brand for a particular use (if there is one!) and would switch if the new brand fitted my paws better.
 
TheBigYin said:
Again, I'm not being prescriptive about what people can or can't do... I'm just stating my own personal preference on the matter, though I do wish that more people would actually be more interested in the (cover your ears now kiddies i'm going to swear) artistic side of the image making process rather than the technical.

(I should add that by general orientation i'm a pretty technical kind of person, always in the "science streams" at school, degree in computing, that sort of thing - I think that probably photography is the sole area where I actually feel I can be something more than just a technician)
Click to expand...

Totally agree about the 'artistic' side of things. Sometimes the composition is the key element, sometimes the behaviour of an animal captured outweighs technical flaws, sometimes the meaning behind the shot is what's important.

That said - a lot of people work hard to get the best out of their equipment, constantly juggling ISO, aperture, shutter speed, AF settings etc to get the best results they can with whatever kit they happen to have. Knowing what kit other people have used and how they've used it, can go a long way to help everybody learn.
 
Last edited:
-Rob- said:
Awwwww a beginner has quoted my post :whistle: Don't worry, you'll learn the benefits of full frame one day and see that they are better.
Click to expand...
They're not "better". It depends what you want to do with them. If all you're doing is publishing online, like most amateur photographers, they're a tremendous waste of money; more useful for posing than practicality.

If shooting to print, I would probably shoot full frame. Particularly if I was going to print big. If I was shooting for publishing online or for viewing mainly on computer, or for printing small, I'd almost certainly take out my less cumbersome, easier to handle, knockabout crop-sensor camera.
 
The image is all that counts.

The end.

If anyone wants to know what lens I used, they can always ask me.
 
ghoti said:
They're not "better".
Click to expand...
You kind of proved yourself wrong with the rest of your post and saved me the trouble!! Thanks.

Crop = great for snap shots and posting online (although they can certainly do a hell of a lot more than that)
FF = Better low light handing, better dynamic range, wider field of view, full frame sensors are typically housed in more 'professional' bodies.

FF > Crop
 
-Rob- said:
You kind of proved yourself wrong with the rest of your post and saved me the trouble!! Thanks.

Crop = great for snap shots and posting online (although they can certainly do a hell of a lot more than that)
FF = Better low light handing, better dynamic range, wider field of view, full frame sensors are typically housed in more 'professional' bodies.

FF > Crop
Click to expand...
So...they're not "better". It depends what you want to do, as you've said. Which was my point.
It's a bit like saying a car with a bigger engine is "better". Better for what? Better for driving around a city? It might not be worse for driving around a city (arguable), but it's not "better".

You might argue that full frame gives you more latitude, you can in theory do more with it, and in more extreme circumstances, should you want to (like the car); but then a lot of that latitude is irrelevant for many amateur photographers and comes with an eye-watering price tag and heavy, cumbersome kit. So neither is "better" than the other. It just depends on how you want to use it and how much value the latitude of FF is likely to offer you.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Yes, they are... if you consider 5" x 4" to be full frame!

(the 10" x 8" users might consider that to be 1/4 size though).


Steve.
Click to expand...


Yep lightwieght wishywashy stuff but then the ULF nutters shooting 16"x20 probably say that about 10"x8"

While the image is all

Gear matters only to the extent that you might need certain sorts of cameras to make certain sorts of images its then down to what people prefer to use / can afford / are physically capable of using.

one of my favourite images is from a fairly basic 5mp compact it was the right camera for the job as it was the only camera with me that said if I ever get the chance to get the same image I want to try and get it with the 10x8
 
What a load of old cobblers, if you were shown a glossy coffee table type book or magazine could you tell which photos were shot with full frame or crop
No is the answer and probably same goes for larger prints and posters

Many excellent wildlife and sports photos have been taken with a crop sensor camera
Both have their advocates and much depends on the user as well as the required subject matter
 
-Rob- said:
You kind of proved yourself wrong with the rest of your post and saved me the trouble!! Thanks.

Crop = great for snap shots and posting online (although they can certainly do a hell of a lot more than that)
FF = Better low light handing, better dynamic range, wider field of view, full frame sensors are typically housed in more 'professional' bodies.

FF > Crop
Click to expand...


Dude.... It's all about the image. If I see a great image, I don't care what it's taken with. You as the photographer chose the most appropriate tools for the job.. nothing more. Sometimes the most appropriate tool may be a full frame camera... sometimes crappy little full frame 35mm cameras don't cut it either (35mm is a miniature format - if you were so bothered... you'd be shooting medium format)... sometimes it's large format... sometimes the best camera is a compact... sometimes a 4/3rd mirrorless SLR. There is no "best"... only appropriate.

To say crop sensor cameras are great for snap shots and posting online infers that if you want to do more, then you need a full frame camera. This, as any decent photographer who knows what they're talking about will tell you, is utter crap. You're regurgitating amateur bull crap.

It's all about the images.

Unless you print really big there's no clear advantage to a full frame camera. You talk as if the dynamic range of something like the D7100 is terrible. It's visually indiscernible from a D810. The D810 may be MEASURABLY better, but you'll never actually be able to tell, and you think you can, you're deluding yourself. It's been a few years since the differences were visible.
 
Last edited:
-Rob- said:
You kind of proved yourself wrong with the rest of your post and saved me the trouble!! Thanks.

Crop = great for snap shots and posting online (although they can certainly do a hell of a lot more than that)
FF = Better low light handing, better dynamic range, wider field of view, full frame sensors are typically housed in more 'professional' bodies.

FF > Crop
Click to expand...

As far as I know the widest mass market full frame lens is the Sigma 12-24mm? I think Sigma also make a 8-16mm APS-C lens which is about the same FoV. As far as I know there's not a lot in it between FF and APS-C FoV wise.

Tringa said:
..... http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/i-am-different-i-am-with.571165/
made me think a bit, or rather some of the replies did.
As this thread suggests what camera we use is generally unimportant and other threads have said the lens is more important. Therefore should we, when posting images, say which lens we used, but not mention the camera at all?
I realise there are images where a member is trying out some capabilities or function of a camera and wants to says what camera they used, but for many shots is there any need to mention it?
Dave
PS I am sure I have been guilty of this.
Click to expand...

Specification is more important to me than ultimate quality and my purchases are driven by what I want to enable me to do what I want. It doesn't really matter to me what is thought to be ultimately best.

I do think it's worthwhile saying what kit and settings are used just for the sake of interest and completeness. Panasonic G1, 25mm f1.8@f4, 1/125, ISO 200. I think it just adds something to know. I wouldn't go further though and state camera raw converted to DNG and processed in CS5, settings follow... unless it was especially relevant :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top